Self-controlled learning benefits: exploring contributions of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation via path analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown learning advantages for self-controlled practice contexts relative to yoked (i.e., experimenter-imposed) contexts; yet, explanations for this phenomenon remain relatively untested. We examined, via path analysis, whether self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation are important constructs for explaining self-controlled learning benefits. The path model was created using theory-based and empirically supported relationships to examine causal links between these psychological constructs and physical performance. We hypothesised that self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation would have greater predictive power for learning under self-controlled compared to yoked conditions. Participants learned double-mini trampoline progressions, and measures of physical performance, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation were collected over two practice days and a delayed retention day. The self-controlled group (M = 2.04, SD = .98) completed significantly more skill progressions in retention than their yoked counterparts (M = 1.3, SD = .65). The path model displayed adequate fit, and similar significant path coefficients were found for both groups wherein each variable was predominantly predicted by its preceding time point (e.g., self-efficacy time 1 predicts self-efficacy time 2). Interestingly, the model was not moderated by group; thus, failing to support the hypothesis that self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation have greater predictive power for learning under self-controlled relative to yoked conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".